Speaking Freely is an Asia Times
Online feature that allows guest writers to have
their say. Please click hereif you are interested in
contributing.

Has anyone nominated
Bangladesh for the Guinness World Records for the
events of August 17? On that day, nearly 500
explosions took place in 63 out of 64 districts,
all within a 30-minute period. The following day,
the last district, Munshiganj, also witnessed
explosions. This was conducted with military
precision. Considering the scale of the operation,
casualties were minimal at two deaths and 100
injuries. Causing maiming and death was obviously
not the purpose. But what was the agenda?

The targets chosen were primarily
government buildings or institutions. Foreign or
Western institutions were not on the whole
threatened. Initially, people were more mystified
than frightened. Political violence is not new
since bombings and assassinations first made their
entry in 1997. Nevertheless, the sheer audacity,
reach and synchronization have shaken everyone out
of their complacency. This was meant to be a
signal, a wake-up call. Forces outside the
conventional mainstream are active and possess the
power to influence the future of the country. In
the continuing political crisis in the country
where general strikes (hartals) are normal
and called regularly, extra-constitutional forces
are letting us know that they are "players" too in
politics. They wanted to send an unequivocal
message that they must be taken seriously by the
mainstream and not relegated, as up till now, as
an isolated "loony fringe".

The usual
suspects have been identified as the culprits -
the banned Islamic armed movement,
Jamaet-ul-Mujahideen Bangladesh (JMB). However,
the sheer scale of the operation leads many to
conclude that others are involved, particularly
foreign groups.

In no other country in the
world has such a bombing campaign been conducted
by a domestic movement. Consider the revolutionary
movements in South Asia, such as the United
Liberation Front of Assam (India). None has been
able to coordinate a similar operation. The only
equivalent is the Maoist forces in Nepal, which
have been able to take over two thirds of the
country and encircle the capital city at will.

To put it into perspective, no underground
movement in Bangladesh yet has the power to
capture state power as the Maoists are threatening
to do in Nepal. But the question being asked is:
is this a shot across the bow to ready us for a
real challenge a few years down the road? Are we
talking 10 years or as little as five?

Who benefits?The JMB may be
the ones who "pulled the triggers" so to speak.
But who gave the orders? The intelligence agencies
have been heavily criticized for their failure to
warn the government. That seems harsh. Several
thousand people were involved in the bombings,
using timer devices. They had to be trained,
financed, transported, housed and been in
communication with their colleagues. How could all
this go unnoticed? It is therefore logical to
assume that the agencies did know something was
up. For example, the Home Minister initially said
that he had prior information. He subsequently
changed the story to having received no warning
beforehand. There is a common perception that a
very powerful lobby is able to protect radical
movements from arrest or scrutiny.

No
investigation will succeed, as we have seen with
previous incidents all leading to a dead end. This
shortcoming is not restricted to the current
regime. The previous Awami League government, too,
failed to bring to justice those responsible
during its tenure from 1996 to 2001.

Where
do we go from here? We need to consider who would
benefit from such an event and what its
consequences will be.

The two main
political parties, the ruling Bangladesh
Nationalist Party alliance and the opposition
Awami League, have publicly accused each other.
Not only is it cheap, it is inaccurate. Neither
party can possibly benefit from such instability.
The local organizations of both parties are in
shambles and not ready for campaigning in
elections set for January 2007. In fact, one
wonders how elections can take place in such an
environment. One presumes the perpetrators have a
strategy and are able to strike again. Given the
volatile political situation, which is set to
worsen this winter, we could see more bombings,
this time with the possibility of horrendous
casualties.

So one wonders, who will
benefit if elections do not take place? That leads
to a conclusion that they lie outside the likely
winners of any election, that is, beyond the two
main parties.

Democracy in serious
perilThough Bangladesh had been able to
conduct three general elections since 1991 in a
relatively free and fair manner, the country has
been in permanent political crisis. Given that
politics is Dhaka-centric, this has been accepted
as a necessary evil by a growing urban middle
class. They have benefited from the success of the
ready-made-garments industry and the retail and
real estate boom in the capital, partly fueled by
illegal diversion of aid money. However, the
escalation of prices of basic essentials, the
rampant corruption and the general insecurity of a
tense city means that this support has all but
vanished and hit rock bottom. Dissatisfaction with
the status quo is widespread, across all sections.

Beyond the capital, the rural economy is
in the doldrums as small-scale farming ceases to
make sense as a business or a livelihood. The
villages have been ignored. The general population
has not seen the benefits of aid or export
earnings filter down to them. After 14 years,
democracy has not produced the goods.

We
have had a few days to gauge popular reaction
since the bombings. So far, there has not been any
serious condemnation by the majority of ordinary
people. Sure, many political groups are bringing
out demonstrations against the bombings,
especially the Islamic parties. But how much of
this is being enacted solely for the media? The
talk in the tea-stalls, restaurants and village
markets is not about public anger. On the
contrary, it is about recognition of a parallel
force that is able and prepared to offer a
challenge. So far they lack an acceptable message.
The people of Bangladesh are not ready or willing
to accept a theocratic Islamic state.

The
question is: are they willing to defend democracy
in the next 12 months, or will they be indifferent
to a changing of the guard?

Farid
Bakht is a columnist and entrepreneur, based
in Dhaka and London.

(Copyright 2004
Farid Bakht)

Speaking Freely is an
Asia Times Online feature that allows guest
writers to have their say. Please click hereif you are interested in
contributing.